-
LACPUG – Randy Ubillos
-
[Herb Sevush] “no desire to work in an on-line CMX room again,”
I don’t know about that. CMX Omni, with 2 D-2 machines, 3 Sony 1″, and 1 Beta SP. Ampex Century 330, 2 channels of Kaliedescope, and don’t forget the Abekas A-62, and A-42, all in one suite…… I could go back for one day. I think it would be fun……
don walker
texarkana, texasJohn 3:16
-
[Herb Sevush] “I don’t think it too much to ask that an NLE designer actually know something about the “E” part of that word, something beyond what you could learn in the AV squad at High School. As Oliver pointed out, Randy was hardly unique in his ignorance, I was pointing him out because he was the subject of the interview. “
I’m very glad he was “ignorant” otherwise he might have created just another version of Avid.
-
It could have been so different. In 1986 I was invited to a meeting with the original Fairlight CMI team. They had invited a bunch of people in sound post to meet an discuss their project to create the Fairlight MFX which was designed as one of the first DAWs targeting film & TV post production, not music creation. They showed screen layouts and I asked why the tracks were horizontal not vertical like a dubbing chart. The purpose of course of a dubbing chart was the tracks correlated to channel strips on the mixer.
I envisaged a system where the computer tracklay would also replace the need to have dubbing charts with a fixed head position and scrolling tracks. The software team had started in England and was using the idea of musical notation with horizontal orientation so that’s why they had the track layout horizontal. If I had been able to influence Fairlight to display vertically then the look of DAWs and likely NLEs might be very different as the Fairlight MFX preceded Avid by a few years.
I can see arguments for and against prior knowledge of how systems had evolved to work. By ignoring a lot of efficiencies and language, worked out over many years obvious things like track orientation were re-invented and possibly to their ongoing detriment. Conversely some of the detritus failed to be incorporated and that’s a plus for sure.
On the topic of Randy, I listened to both videos and it was great info to hear. One thing really struck me was that he was the only software engineer who did demos. My experience with dSP and Fairlight development was that many of the software team were highly experienced sound editors and could both code and demo effectively. I think that any software team that can’t actually edit with the software well enough to demo it is strange.
-
[Michael Gissing] ” think that any software team that can’t actually edit with the software well enough to demo it is strange”
I don’t think it’s a matter of can’t. There have been and still are a number of accomplished past editors/filmmakers on the FCP/FCPX team. It’s more a matter of how Apple likes to do things.
– Oliver
Oliver Peters – oliverpeters.com
-
[Steve Connor] “I’m very glad he was “ignorant” otherwise he might have created just another version of Avid.”
First, I don’t want my comments to be construed as pointing to any sort of ignorance. Merely that a lot of very sharp developers did not come from a film background. Sharp engineers/developers can survey existing technologies and come up with something new and unique.
Second, I think it’s important to note that once exposed to some of the aspects of film and film editors, Randy seems to have absorbed a lot. I would suggest that the editing paradigm of FCPX is a lot closer to a Steenbeck or a Moviola, than is that of FCP or other “traditional” 2-up/track-based NLEs. Those are more similar to 2-VTR linear systems.
– Oliver
Oliver Peters – oliverpeters.com
-
[Oliver Peters] “It’s films that gave us 24fps, rightly or wrongly. And try as the industry might, the majority of people still seem to prefer that visual experience. Understanding film technology helps engineers to add that (and other technologies) to the video feature set.”
Yes the difference between 24 fps and 60 fps gives a different aesthetic. But what about 30 fps? I actually think this example says something different. I doubt the end viewer could even perceive the difference between 24 and 30 fps. So then the question becomes “why do films continue to be shot in 24 fps?” The number one reason is inertia. Whole workflows have been developed for 24fps. To change to 30 fps would be costly for little to no gain. The second, much lesser reason, is that 24 fps has become synonymous with quality because film was superior to video for many decades. Including when many of those who work in the field started out.
-
[Brett Sherman] “Yes the difference between 24 fps and 60 fps gives a different aesthetic. But what about 30 fps? I actually think this example says something different. I doubt the end viewer could even perceive the difference between 24 and 30 fps.”
I think it’s a complex answer. Originally the industry options were 60 interlaced fields versus 24 whole frames (50 and 25 in PAL countries). As we shifted to HD, then 24, 25, 30, 50, or 60 progressive (whole) frames became technologically possible in cameras and to be passed through post. Likewise, we shifted to flat panel displays instead of CRTs. Panels are inherently progressive.
Today it’s common to finish and deliver in one of these 5 rates – mostly progressive. However, for reasons of file size and bandwidth, it’s generally 24, 25, or 30. On most displays, you probably won’t see much difference between them, so 24 (or 25) becomes an optimal rate, because it offers the best compressed video quality, as there are fewer frames to compress in the stream.
[Brett Sherman] “So then the question becomes “why do films continue to be shot in 24 fps?” The number one reason is inertia.”
In part. Peter Jackson’s attempt (among others) has largely been deemed unsuccessful when it comes to viewer reaction, not to mention less commercial success. Same with efforts like ShowScan. Then there are issues like VFX. If 50% of the shots in your film have some type of VFX, then it’s a lot less time-consuming and less costly to process at 24fps than at 48fps (or higher).
People who like the god-awful, high-frame-rate modes (like 120fps) in their flat panel displays, can simply turn that on and get a convincing result, without any extra effort on the production/post/delivery side. Thus the *best* of both worlds.
[Brett Sherman] “24 fps has become synonymous with quality because film was superior to video for many decades”
Well, true. But, there are also visual differences like motion blur, which lend to something that is subliminally perceived as more “imaginary” than as “reality”.
– Oliver
Oliver Peters – oliverpeters.com
-
[Oliver Peters] ” But, there are also visual differences like motion blur, which lend to something that is subliminally perceived as more “imaginary” than as “reality”.”
Any discussion of frame rates becomes very complicated, very quickly, especially if an historical understanding is missing.
If motion blur is so important then why not 22 frames or 20, why the magical “24”, when it is not tied to anything inherent in the human perceiving mechanism or in something as basic as the local AC current, which is where we get the video standard of 30fps (and, as a kludge, 29.97) and the Brits get 25.
Silent films had standardized on 18 fps for almost 10 years, with no complaints about flickering artifacts, before sound came in and required 24 fps to create a usable audio playback mechanism, so there is no reason, except for the happenstance of history, to stick with 24 now. If it’s motion blur you want and also the desire to save on transmission bandwidth, then let’s go back to 18fps now that audio playback is no longer an issue. 24 is 24 because of the technological limitations of a century ago, there is nothing inherently special about it, it is the “imperial vs metric” conflict of the motion picture world.
For myself, I work in Broadcast and see no reason to shoot in 24, rather than the 30(29.97) my work is transmitted at. If I were releasing in Theatrical I would work in 24 for the same reason. I doubt many viewers can tell the difference, I know there is no objective reason to choose one over the other as “better” in all contexts.
Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
—————————
nothin\’ attached to nothin\’
\”Deciding the spine is the process of editing\” F. Bieberkopf -
[Steve Connor] “I’m very glad he was “ignorant” otherwise he might have created just another version of Avid.”
First, let me be clear that I was talking about his work on what eventually became Final Cut 1-5, which is what the interview was about.
On that point I have a few responses to your comments.
First, do you think Avid is such a pinnacle of design that it would be the only direction someone with an editing background could come up with? That’s quite a compliment to Avid.
Second, what makes you think Final Cut Pro 1 is anything other than “just another version of Avid?”
Finally, personally, I will always prefer decisions made from a position of knowledge to those made from a position of ignorance.
Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
—————————
nothin\’ attached to nothin\’
\”Deciding the spine is the process of editing\” F. Bieberkopf -
[Oliver Peters] “So let’s be careful about what we consider “the past”.”
The utility, the aesthetic, the magic of film is certainly not past. Just the production process. A handful of directors will still plow those fields for all the reasons in my first sentence … and more.
But the capture of moving imagery for the billion communications purposes it’s useful in – has simply moved past film.
Everyone knows that.
And its disingenuous to argue otherwise.
Creator of XinTwo – https://www.xintwo.com
The shortest path to FCP X mastery.
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up